The history of Israel & Zionism - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15108752
QatzelOk wrote:And like the First Nations, Palestinians are just a fake creation of Marxists and SJW

Palestinians have a reasonable claim to nationhood, just not an ancient one. I don't claim that the Phoenicians were a first nation of the region, but by your reckoning they certainly have a more legitimate claim than Palestinian or other Middle Eastern Muslim ethnicities.
#15108764
skinster wrote:When have Palestinians claimed to have an ancient case for nationhood? You might be confusing them with Zionists.

Not only that, but because of Zionism, the order of everything is turned upside down in order to legitimize something that could never be legitimized using traditional moral values.

It's like when Henry VIII turned to Protestantism because he didn't want to behead any more wives, and desperately needed a new one.

Boom! UK Faith was updated with new anti-Pope app that makes all previous apps obsolete.

Boom! Creation of new Euro colony in the 20th Century... means that all morality about international relations is flushed down the toilet, and Hollwood inherits a clean slate on which to draw its new "morality" of "colonization of inferior races."

Back to the Middle Ages, but with nukes this time.
#15108772
QatzelOk wrote:It's like when Henry VIII turned to Protestantism because he didn't want to behead any more wives, and desperately needed a new one.

I'm struggling to understand how you came up with that statement. I'm no expert but I believe the high water mark of Henry's protestantism was under Jane Seymour, but even of I was wrong about that are you trying to suggest that Henry made a further turn towards Protestantism to avoid beheading Anne of Cleves? i just can't see any way to make sense of what you said.
#15108958
Rich wrote:I'm no expert but I believe the high water mark of Henry's protestantism was under Jane Seymour, but even of I was wrong about that are you trying to suggest that Henry made a further turn towards Protestantism to avoid beheading Anne of Cleves?

After beheading Anne Boley, his next trophy bride - Jane Seymour - dies in childbirth shortly after. This put him off the idea of killing his wives in order to divorce them. (the Catholic Church recognizes the death penalty for treason, but not divorce)
Of course, this is just one reason that He would become protestant. But there are a few others:

wiki wrote:Henry believed that he needed to form a political alliance with her brother, William, who was a leader of the Protestants of western Germany, to strengthen his position against potential attacks from Catholic France and the Holy Roman Empire.

So there were military-political reasons as well.

The only reasons missing are.... uh.... faith and believing in something.
(Just like in the Creation of Ersatz Israel)
#15109127
Debunking the Myth of the Zionist Left
Aharon Cohen, a senior member of MAPAM, the Israeli United Workers Party, observed in 1948 that “a state based on national enmity and the rule of one people over another will certainly breed chauvinism and reaction in its internal life.” Cohen understood that the relationship between Arabs—Palestinian and non-Palestinian alike—and Israelis would profoundly shape the new state. And so it did, and MAPAM, bound to its nationalist commitments, enabled and participated in the construction of exactly that antagonism, becoming the early standard bearer of a tendency known as Zionist leftism.

Tikva Honig-Parnass’s new book, False Prophets of Peace, examines the process through which that tendency shapes the ongoing colonization of Palestine. She studies, builds on and reinterprets the prevailing discourse among Zionist left intellectuals and political activists to examine how it is implicated in this settler colonial project. She surveys how this discourse informs both state policies and their justifications. By extension, we are shown how the Zionist left defines the parameters within which policies are challenged, thus shaping the Zionist narrative through that political force’s limited, or even only nominal, opposition.

Honig-Parnass argues that limiting our criticism to revisionist and reactionary strands of Zionism overlooks not only the center, but more importantly the “left” politicians and intellectuals who have played such a central role in building and maintaining the Zionist state and undermining a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As this book shows, since before the founding of the State of Israel, the Zionist left has far too often spoken in the language of universalism while helping to create and maintain legal systems, governments, and a military which have enabled Israeli colonization and apartheid.

Honig-Parnass begins by reaching back to the early 1900s and debunking the myths of Labor Zionism, the historic taproot of the Zionist left. She does so because the Zionist left is often defended by referring to its links with the socialist movements burgeoning in Europe at the time, thereby creating the impression that Labor Zionism was premised on or aspired to socialist principles.

Such impressions are not merely false. They were quite deliberately cultivated, and are deliberately dishonest. In its franker moments, the senior leadership of the day dispensed with such appearances. David Ben Gurion, the head of the Zionist Labor movement, confessed as early as 1922 that “The only big concern which dominates our thinking and activity is the conquest of the land, and building it through mass immigration (aliya). All the rest is only phraseology, deserts [sic] and ‘afters’ and we should not deceive ourselves.” Contrary to prevailing mythology, Honig-Parnass notes, “the labor movement’s version of socialism was a tool for implementing colonization rather than a means of creating a new social order.” At the Twentieth Zionist Congress, in 1937, Ben Gurion advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to address what has come to be known as the “demographic threat”[1] and to make way for a Jewish state because “growing Jewish strength in Palestine will increase our possibilities for conducting a large scale transfer.”

Honig-Parnass also shows how the overarching organization of workers’ trade unions, the Histadrut, was a “central organ of the colonial project,” controlling and coordinating economic production, marketing, defense, and the labor force, as well as institutionalizing a mode of industrial development that avoided competition with cheaper (Palestinian) Arab labor. She explains how labor (“Left”) and reactionary Zionisms complemented each other. Rather than Labor Zionism arguing against private property or challenging the capitalist system, its demand was for private capital to be leveraged to secure and develop land for the Zionist settler colonial project. In this way, the Zionist enterprise in Palestine was informed by an ideological complex more akin to nationalist socialism,[2] and thus had far more in common with right-wing, rather than left-wing, European political tendencies.

The leadership, governing institutions, and organizations that prefigured and helped to build the state in turn became that state’s core infrastructure. The Histadrut became a central institution for managing and controlling labor, thereby playing a role in preventing the building of joint class struggle between working class Jews and Palestinians. Masquerading as a labor union, it undermined independent labor organizing, sought to eliminate Palestinian and joint organizing, or harnessed them to a right-wing colonial project—the calling card of the Zionist left.

It is from this vantage point that Honig-Parnass explains the justifications of Zionist left intellectuals and political activists for the erasure of the Nakba, the building and maintaining of a theocratic and ethnocratic Jewish state, the need for a Jewish majority, the logic of “separate but equal,” and the denial of Palestinian rights and national aspirations. She also shows how the Zionist left rationalizes its assertion of the democratic nature of the state and its role in “peace” initiatives. The first portion of the book abounds with examples and explanations of the mechanisms through which these arguments are not only defended, but in turn go on to inform state and military policy and practice.

In later sections, the author outlines the development of a new breed of internal Israeli Jewish challenges to the Zionist discourse that emerged in the late 1980s. She also shows the limitations of such challenges and how they remain ultimately committed to Zionism. For example, she critically highlights the Zionist left’s claims that the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is at the center of the conflict. Accordingly, the withdrawal of the 1967 occupied territories (with “border corrections”) would bring the much-aspired-to peace with Palestinian leadership. On the other hand, post-Zionists depict the root cause of the conflict as the 1948 ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. And a few of them even acknowledge the colonial dimension of the Zionist settlement in Palestine. However, they do not see Zionist colonialism in the context of historic imperialist colonization throughout the world, and do not condemn Zionist colonialism on principled or ideological grounds. Such a position would have led them away from Zionism and to an internationalist politic through which they would be able to stand with those fighting against colonialism writ large. Instead, they see fault in the act of the 1948 Nakba but not in the Zionist project itself; they don’t recognize in the event the unfolding of the very logic that drives it. This truncated reading of history allowed them to remain reconciled to Zionism and its crystallization in the Jewish state.

Furthermore, she contends that post-Zionism’s reliance on identity politics in Israel/Palestine, rather than on anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, class analysis as informed by popular movements and critical analysis across the region, laid the ground for critiques of Zionism that lack an analysis of it as a settler colonial project bound to Western imperial domination. Additionally, and more importantly, the term “post-Zionism” is misleading in crucial ways. Zionist ideology has never stopped making way for the expansion of Israeli conquest and military aggression and for US imperial wars and occupations across the region. Israeli wars continue apace. The settlement project continues to expand. The term “post-Zionism” carries connotations that neither history nor political program nor struggle have reflected.

Indeed, through her analysis, Honig-Parnass deftly shows how both left Zionism and post-Zionism have been easily incorporated into the political project of an expansionary Zionist state and its role as a regional wrecking ball. That function comes into sharp relief amidst the encounter with the Palestinian movement. For that reason, she adds that Palestinians threaten more than just the Israeli apartheid state, but also “the stability of US rule” in the area, through the way Palestinian mobilizations works as both accelerant and catalyst for struggles in the broader region. Ultimately, then, through this incisive examination of limply oppositional politics, we get a rich and textured anatomy of how a failure to break with nationalist and Zionist politics, themselves a tool for capitalist accumulation in a settler colony, leads to a fundamental accommodation with right-wing, imperialist political and economic power—foreign and domestic.

The book ends with deconstructions of what the Zionist left defines as peace, highlighting the Oslo Accords and the Geneva Initiative. Both of these plans reinforced the occupation they purported to resolve. Honig-Parnass deals with the recent past and shows the growing irrelevance of the Zionist left as its contradictions become increasingly less tenable and the Right adopts its rhetoric, effectively incorporating “dissident” voices to disguise the real power that sustains the Zionist project in Palestine. One example of this is Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, which Zionist Left eagerly supported. He promoted it as an Israeli move in support of Palestinian autonomy. What it did was to create an isolated Palestinian enclave that could be blockaded, attacked with white phosphorus, and starved of food, water and electricity.

The importance of this book is in exposing and explaining how liberal and left Zionist political and intellectual ideas and institutions have been organic parts of the Zionist project, allowing us to identify and delimit—or sort out—the components of the Zionist “peace” camp. Once this is done, which way forward?

The author suggests that the answer lies in the “unification of all progressive social forces, both Jewish and Palestinian, in a struggle for the democratization and de-Zionization of the state.” But which segments of Israeli Jewish society are poised for this project? As Honig-Parnass shows to devastating effect, it seems extremely unlikely that the white Ashkenazi[3] “peace camp”—which has so much invested in the occupation—might be the impetus for a bloc that could overturn it and the settler-colonial structures with which it is braided. Where else? Given the class and race claims of the Mizrahim,[4] it seems logical that therein lays some potential for this collaboration. And indeed, aware of such a threat, the Israeli power structure has always hastened to destroy any radical Mizrahi political formation—or failing that, to hybridize or enfold Mizrahim within state structures.

Here again Honig-Parnass makes a strong contribution. She outlines a trajectory of Mizrahi struggle, and notes where it has—and has not—been able to challenge liberal Zionism, as well as the specific ways in which the Mizrahi struggle has been undermined by both liberal theory and state repression. This history includes rejection of the Zionist left political parties manifested by the militant resistance of the Black Panthers in the early 1970s. This incarnated the unthinkable: a movement of working class and low-income Mizrahim opposing Israeli racism and class oppression against their own communities, some of whom made genuine attempts to reach out to Palestinians. It is thus unsurprising that state repression has fallen far more heavily on oppositional Mizrahi movements such as the Israeli Black Panthers than it has on anti-Zionist Ashkenazi movements.

Honig-Parnass reminds us that as early as 1972, mass arrests, the opening of criminal files, and a smear campaign presenting them as members of a global terrorist network undermined the Black Panthers. And these are the same strategies that are in full force today in delegitimizing anti-imperialist and therefore anti-Zionist social forces elsewhere in the region and around the world.

The more recent post-Zionist trend in Mizrahi politics has accepted the Zionist project and its consolidation into the “Jewish” state. Honig-Parnass masterfully deconstructs the ways in which emphases on identity (in particular Mizrahi) has undermined anti-Zionist politics and organizing by failing to address the foundational antagonisms of colonialism, racism and class oppression. In turn, she dissects post-modern arguments and their inability to articulate direct opposition to Israeli colonialism, or even acknowledge it as a root cause of the differently located Palestinian and Mizrahi oppression.

However, we are concerned that this assessment, while important and necessary, perhaps limits our ability to recognize (and then support) certain embryonic possibilities. For example, a group of Mizrahi Jews in Jerusalem is currently organizing around housing rights and making connections with Palestinians whose homes in East Jerusalem are being demolished. Whether it will grow to take an unequivocal stance on the colonial nature of Zionism is yet to be seen. But this example invites us to make a distinction between guarding against the roles that ”identity politics” can play to inhibit movement building and the use of different locations of struggle from which to join together against common enemies and toward similar aims. Indeed, all struggle begins amidst and against a particular experience of oppression.

The struggles which will emerge from within Israeli Jewish society that have within them the potential to contribute to overcoming Zionism are unknown, but to recognize them, we must relinquish false hopes. What Honig-Parnass proves with a catalog of facts, and what is crucial, is that there is nothing libratory or salvageable about “left” or liberal Zionism. She concludes her book by stating that rejection of a comprehensive view of US imperialism and the impact of Zionism as a colonial project ”has made the Zionist Left and post-Zionism the main obstacles to the development of a radical movement in Israel that would be part and parcel of the resisting forces among Palestinians and throughout the Arab World.” Those of us committed to challenging imperialism and colonialism are encouraged to consider the impediments, in Israel and everywhere, to grassroots struggles for liberation and justice, and to find ways to circumvent them.

False Prophets of Peace has the odd luck of being both long overdue and arriving at the perfect moment, offering an invaluable contribution to destroying the myth of the progressiveness of the Zionist Left. Honig-Parnass shows definitively that it has been a conservative—if not reactionary—force.

As we enter President Obama’s second term in the US, and Mahmoud Abbas claims on Israeli television that he does not believe he has a right to live on the land on which he was born, the usefulness of the analysis offered in this book remains clear. And Honig-Parnass’s embrace of regional struggles oriented towards decolonization is most welcome. All of this makes the book a much-needed addition to the critical literature on the issue. Above all, she is clear that the resolution to the struggle for Palestinian self-determination—and therefore a just peace—will not come from a kinder, gentler form of Zionism. It will come from its mass rejection.
https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/28784 ... bV4JQo3oQY


Famous Liberal Zionist of a couple of decades, Peter Beinhart, finally gives up his support for ethno-supremacy, in favour of equality. His article in the first tweet and some of the typical attacks people who demand equality get, after.














#15109280
Not all socialist Zionists have been like that . For example , Berl Katznelson was quoted as saying this .
I do not wish to see the realization of Zionism in the form of the new Polish state with Arabs in the position of the Jews and the Jews in the position of the Poles, the ruling people. For me this would be the complete perversion of the Zionist ideal... Our generation has been witness to the fact that nations aspiring to freedom who threw off the yoke of subjugation rushed to place this yoke on the shoulders of others. Over the generations in which we were persecuted and exiled and slaughtered, we learned not only the pain of exile and subjugation, but also contempt for tyranny. Was that only a case of sour grapes? Are we now nurturing the dream of slaves who wish to reign?
And from Ber Borochov
Many point out the obstacles which we encounter in our colonization work. Some say that the Turkish law hinders our work, others contend that Palestine is insignificantly small, and still others charge us with the odious crime of wishing to oppress and expel the Arabs from Palestine...
When the waste lands are prepared for colonization, when modern technique is introduced, and when the other obstacles are removed, there will be sufficient land to accommodate both the Jews and the Arabs. Normal relations between the Jews and Arabs will and must prevail.
Here is a counterargument to what @skinster has been asserting .
Really , Skinster's blanket statement against the cause of Zionism reminds me of certain anti-feminists , whom fail to realize the differing tendencies which exist within the spectrum of feminist thought . And just as not all feminists are misandrist , not all Zionists have been anti-Arab . And also , some , namely Ihud , even supported a binational state . So while I would join in condemning the revisionist Zionist conception of the Jewish state , Zionism itself I believe to have been a worthwhile endeavor . https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/benjamin-netanyahu-israel.html , https://www.huffpost.com/entry/my-generation-ruined-isra_b_587635 In conclusion ...
Many of those opposed to the course of Begin and Sharon reject it not only as aggressive, inhumane and ultimately disastrous for Israel: they see it as a betrayal of Zionism itself. Disgusted, shocked and frightened by the brutal excesses, lies, overt racism and chauvinism of the ruling coalition, many dissident Israelis seek refuge in the comforting embrace of “real” Zionism, as they see it, the Zionism of the early halutzim (pioneers), of the kibbutzim and the labor movement, of Ben-Gurion and his generation. Beginism, they argue, contradicts the basic principles on which Israel was founded. It perverts the goals and hopes of the Zionist movement as conceived by its early leaders. It is fundamentally at odds with the humane, progressive and internationalist ethos of that original Zionism. To counter Begin’s “bad Zionism,” his Zionism gone berserk, they turn to the past in search of a “good Zionism” worthy of their faith... The notion of a good, peace-loving and humane Zionism is in large part myth. The Zionist enterprise is based on an injustice and has regularly employed violent and inhumane methods. Still, in the face of this, we must keep in mind that nearly all of the Israeli Jews who take to the streets to protest repression in the West Bank, the soldiers who refuse to carry out orders, the Peace Now activists and sympathizers and many of the Jews abroad who detest Begin all consider themselves to be Zionists: partisans and defenders of a great redemptive dream, a national liberation movement sullied by the present Israeli government. This points to the powerful grip that Zionism as mythology and as ideology exerts on Israelis and Jews. It also shows the extent to which that ideology has lost its content and can be used for different purposes. If Zionism means to many Israelis that whatever its origins Israel is today an established fact which cannot simply be erased, and that Israel must respect the Palestinian right to self-determination in at least part of historic Palestine, then there are some grounds for hope. This level of understanding does not, of course, resolve all problems — for example: Israel’s self-definition as a state not of its citizens, Jewish and Arab, but of all Jews everywhere; or the structural discrimination and oppression institutionalized in the Law of Return and official land policies. These are important questions, and the “two-state” solution does not fully resolve them. Yet there is today a broad consensus, outside of Israel and the Reagan administration, that this solution is the best immediate goal. There is a need to support the struggle of Israelis who are part of this consensus or tending toward it, regardless of whether they define themselves as Zionists or not.
- https://merip.org/1983/05/zionism-good-and-bad/
#15109408
Berl Katznelson  wrote:Are we now nurturing the dream of slaves who wish to reign?

All Abrahamic religions present the "believer" with a behavioral straight-jacket. Controls on sexuality, association, philosophical beliefs, and much more, are systematically controlled and manipulated both by the central text of the "faith," and by its increasingly bitter adherents.

Out of this slavery to an animal-domestication text... comes a desire to control other people, to control the world, to make others suffer from YOUR CONTROL the same way that YOU suffer the control of others (in the form of a religion and the straight-jacket that is mandatory).

So this "slave who wants others to be even more slave-like" goes a lot deeper than this quote. Remember, the "Christians" who shoved Christianity down the genocided throats of the First Nations had been genocided into submission themselves by the forces of Christianity a few centuries earlier by Rome. Is this more "slaves creating even more slaves" in order to enjoy some Schadenfreude?

Is that what Abrahamic "forced conversion" is? A ruined group of people savoring other people's pain?
#15109620
Rancid wrote:Are there Jews that are Anti-zionists?


Yes, plenty. The tweet by the person above your post is from an Israeli Jew whose father was a general in the 1967 war in Israel. 5 of the articles in this thread are written by Jews. The YouTube clip I shared is by a Jew. Two podcasts in this thread, one is of a Jew and the other is created by a Jew.

There are tons of anti-Zionist Jews, orgs etc. Some of the fastest growing Jewish orgs in the U.S are anti-Zionist Jews, like Jewish Voices for Peace. Students for Justice for Palestine, a group that's in most American universities, is full of Jews. There are even anti-Zionist Jewish groups inside of Israel. Most of articles and clips I share on this board about Israel or Zionism are written by Jews, because Zionists are racist and it's hard to accuse their fellow Jews of racism, so they usually opt for calling them "self hating Jews*" or in the case of Oxy above, they gaslight.

*Joel Kovel in the podcast ITT about his book Overcoming Zionism, responds to the 'self-hating Jew' attacks by Jews that he's got and responds to it by stating he is merely a Zionism-hating Jew. :D
#15109635
I'm a secondary Zionist. That means my opposition to the Sunni Muslim terror States, Nazi China and my desire for friendship with Putin's Russia trump my support of Israel. However that said I think its fair to characterise me as robust Zionist as opposed to a bleedin heart Zionist like the woman in the above video. I don't think we should be too critical of bleedin heart Zionists though, they are absolutely vital to giving Israel cover, vital to confusing and discombobulating the opponents of Zionist expansionism and opponents of Zionist ethnic cleansing. :lol: While they waffle on about two States, Palestinian rights and "I'm critical of Israel", robust Zionist Israelis can quietly get on with creating "facts on the ground."
#15109731
skinster wrote:Yes, plenty. The tweet by the person above your post is from an Israeli Jew whose father was a general in the 1967 war in Israel. 5 of the articles in this thread are written by Jews. The YouTube clip I shared is by a Jew. Two podcasts in this thread, one is of a Jew and the other is created by a Jew.

There are tons of anti-Zionist Jews, orgs etc. Some of the fastest growing Jewish orgs in the U.S are anti-Zionist Jews, like Jewish Voices for Peace. Students for Justice for Palestine, a group that's in most American universities, is full of Jews. There are even anti-Zionist Jewish groups inside of Israel. Most of articles and clips I share on this board about Israel or Zionism are written by Jews, because Zionists are racist and it's hard to accuse their fellow Jews of racism, so they usually opt for calling them "self hating Jews*" or in the case of Oxy above, they gaslight.

*Joel Kovel in the podcast ITT about his book Overcoming Zionism, responds to the 'self-hating Jew' attacks by Jews that he's got and responds to it by stating he is merely a Zionism-hating Jew. :D

These so-called Jews in America don't want to give up there good life to migrate to Israel and they also hate real Jesus loving Christians. I have met some of them, so I know from personal experience.
#15109734
Hindsite wrote:they also hate real Jesus loving Christians.

Don't we all?

Self-hating hypocrites obsessed with the 'End of Days'. It's a miserable interpretation of Protestantism.
#15109752
I'm interested to know what you Zionists and Anti-Zionists think about how we can advance the peace process. We can debate and argue forever about who is right or wrong, who has the moral high ground etc.. But at the end of the day the status quo will remain unchanged.

We've had the Oslo Accords where both sides recognize each other's legitimacy. But where do we go from here? I would say that both sides have to sacrifice something that is painful to them so that we can get a win-win situation that is acceptable to both. Also, whatever solution that comes up must be willingly accepted by the populations themselves, without coercion by external powers.
#15109865
skinster wrote:It did, e.g. the kibbutz colonies were segregated, available for Jews-only, built on stolen land.
According to this , this is not true . http://www.israeladvocacy.net/knowledge/the-truth-of-how-israel-was-created/israel-stole-palestinian-land/ , http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6800
Kibbutz Festivals
The kibbutz (Hebrew word for “communal settlement”) is a unique rural community; a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice; a socioeconomic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education; the fulfillment of the idea “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”; a home for those who have chosen it.

The first kibbutzim (plural of “kibbutz”) were founded some 40 years before the establishment of the State of Israel (1948). Degania (from the Hebrew “dagan,” meaning grain), located south of Lake Kinneret, was established in 1909 by a group of pioneers on land acquired by the Jewish National Fund. Their founders were young Jewish pioneers, mainly from Eastern Europe, who came not only to reclaim the soil of their ancient homeland, but also to forge a new way of life. Their path was not easy: a hostile environment, inexperience with physical labor, a lack of agricultural know-how, desolate land neglected for centuries, scarcity of water and a shortage of funds were among the difficulties confronting them. Overcoming many hardships, they succeeded in developing thriving communities which have played a dominant role in the establishment and building of the state.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-kibbutz-movement
When Khaled died, in 2014, at the age of 70, his family expected to bury him in a traditional Muslim ceremony in the village. For someone who lived most of his life far from the place of his birth, that could have been a symbolic return. But his children wanted him to be laid to rest next to their mother, who was born on a kibbutz in the north. “That’s what he wanted,” Khaled and Naomi’s firstborn son says. “His whole life was shaped by the kibbutz.”
How did young Khaled meet 16-year-old Naomi (their names have been changed at their children’s request) on a kibbutz in the early 1960s, when the military government ruled over Israel’s Arab citizens? Like several hundred other young Arabs, Khaled arrived on the kibbutz as part of the Pioneer Arab Youth, a movement that sounds almost like a fairy tale today. Young Arabs, mostly boys, from the country’s north were invited to live, study and work on kibbutzim. They left their village homes alone and spent years in these communities – working, eating and sleeping alongside the Jewish kibbutzniks. In some cases they made the move with their family’s blessing, but others were rebelling against their parents and their society.
The Arab Pioneers learned Hebrew, danced the hora, raised the Israeli flag, sang “Hatikva,” the national anthem, and in some cases even took Hebrew names. Some began relationships with Jewish girls and aspired to assimilate into the kibbutz society. Others wanted to learn new agricultural methods with the aim of returning home and improving life in their villages. A few of them tried to realize a dream and establish an Arab kibbutz
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-experiment-that-invited-israeli-arabs-to-live-the-zionist-dream-1.7575293 I feel that it is difficult to completely , and accurately ascertain the truth of the matter . I have heard conflicting accounts , which complicates things . But I think that this seems to sum up the situation .
Prior to the military operations of 1948 and 1967, the land had been acquired by the traditional market methods, but these were subsequently replaced by less orthodox methods and the Palestinians' abandoned land and other property was simply seized by the Jews. For instance, after the military operations of 1948, the military occupation authorities took emergency and other measures to seize the Palestinians' lands and property. These measures, which have been described in detail in the foregoing chapters, all have the same characteristic: they are always taken for "security reasons". Subsequently, and particularly after these measures came into force, the State felt it had to justify the acts resulting from the application of these measures.

In order to do so, it enacted a series of laws, the most important of which - the Land Acquisition Law - enabled it to give a legal character to all the abuses arising out of the emergency and other measures taken by the military authorities. The Land Acquisition Law also authorized the State of Israel to take over abandoned land and property, which had not been the practice before this law was enacted.

This law, of which the State is the main beneficiary since it owns most of the land and other real property in Palestine, was subsequently to facilitate the direct intervention of the State in the administration and management of the land and other real property owned by the Palestinians.

Once the land and property had been acquired thanks to the Land Acquisition Law, this intervention of the State was to continue under the guise of the establishment of Jewish settlements.

Obviously, the State had to develop the land it had taken over and prevent bankruptcies; and so it introduced the policy of establishing settlements that would be State-run.
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/181c4bf00c44e5fd85256cef0073c426/7d094ff80ff004f085256dc200680a27 Certain Israelis though , such as Gershon Baskin , for example , have come out against such segregation . https://gershonbaskin.org/insights/in-pursuit-of-equality-separate-is-not-equal/
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]